Blog of Dr. Miland Brown that features different aspects of world history. Not everything can be covered but sites dealing with any historical issue or topic are possible future posts. Also includes sites which discuss teaching history. Dr. Brown is an academic in North America.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Wacky American Separatists

The world is full of regions and ethnic groups clamoring for independence. Some have valid causes, most do not. Just because you have your own administrative region or history as a people going back thousands of years does not mean you get your own nation state...

The United States of America is no different. There are numerous separatist causes. They have little popular support nationally or in their localities and have no chance of success in the foreseeable future. However, they are wacky. And this is because of their strange (and wrong) readings of international law and history.

Do you believe that the American Congress has no legal right to annex territory via a Joint Resolution of Congress? The international community does not accept this but some claim that Texas and Hawaii are not legally American as they were added to the nation in this fashion.

A history of Texas notes, "Some claim to this day that Texas was never legally acquired by the United States as Congress does not have the power to acquire territory via a joint resolution. However, Texas is not a unique case of the use of a joint resolution of Congress to annex foreign land. Hawaii was also annexed legally in this manner in 1898. International law fully recognizes American ownership of Texas and arguments to the contrary are false, are not supported by any nation or international governing body such as the United Nations or the World Court, or by the vast majority of the citizens of Texas. "

And that is the end of that bogus argument. And if any disagree, please take this case to the World Court. I am sure that the judges would give this argument the swift decision it deserves.

Do you believe that American territories can not become states unless an option for independence is on the ballot during the statehood vote? If so, Alaska and Hawaii (again) are not American states. This ballot requirement is a rule made by the United Nations. However, it does not always choose to enforce it. In fact, the UN removed both Hawaii and Alaska from the list of non self-governing territories after the citizens of these territories voted overwhelmingly (over 90% in Hawaii) in favor of statehood. And there was no option for independence on the ballot for either state.

Do you believe that any illegal action impacting the sovereignty of a prior government invalidates forever any actions taken by successive governments? If so, then the USA has no legal right to exist as all American land was previously owned by sovereign nations which occupied North America and Hawaii. And as these nations never willingly gave up their land, they must still be the legal owners right? As the Chippewa tribe never legally ceded Michigan, that state must still legally be a part of the Chippewa nation. As the Republic of Texas was illegal under Mexican law, Texas must still be Mexican territory. As the Republic of Hawaii was illegal under the laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the Kingdom must still exist. Of course, that is not the way that international law works...

My favorite argument used by the various Texas and Hawaiian groups is that their "nations" are undergoing a prolonged military occupation by the United States. This of course turns the meaning of the word occupation on its head and threatens to make the concept meaningless. If they are under occupation, how is it that their websites stay up, their leaders remain free, and they are allowed to participate fully in the political process by voting, running for office, and conducting protests? Heck, if Texas is not American then George W. Bush is not legally President of the USA. How can a citizen of the occupied nation also be the leader of the occupying nation? Get real...

But I will admire the Hawaiian, Texan, and Alaskan separatists on one point. They are non-violent and are content to allow this topic to be an academic debate. Thankfully, there are no Alaskan suicide bombers. America is a free enough country to allow for wacky groups to freely express their "unique" views and the perspective they add to debates reminds many of the freedom they have as Americans.

To argue if such territories are american or not at this time is pointless.

I believe they should be allowed separatism only if they wanted to, except that they're doing relatively well with USofA help, so separatiam would mean economic disaster to those states (alaska, texas, Hawaii). greetings

In my opinion, the writing is on the wall for the evolution of the United States to separate between liberal and conserative thinkers. The two schools of thought are exactly what George Washington warned aobut and have divided this country. Moreover, it seems to be Christians who are enslaved by the seculars as well as conservatives for the liberals to exploit a tax base. With the massive increase in debt we are experiencing under Obama as well as the polarized concepts of foreign policy as to diplomatic protection against the concept of terrorism only adds fuel to the fire of discontent and reason for separation. In documented history, this combat between Christian and Muslum sects have raged since the times of Christ and have pushed for separatists to search for a land that provides religious freedom. However, under Obama it will be soon perfectly alright for seculars to devulge in hate speech toward Christians, but Christians will not be able to voice an oppinion toward Muslums. Is this diplomatic approach worth the price of our freedom protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which states all men are created equal with certian unalienable rights endowed by our creator?

To separate means to obtain freedom. I propose a separation based along no fault divorce laws here there is equal separation of government assets and a division geographically between east and west in the United States. It only makes sense that the liberals take the west as it will provide them with the Mexican coridor to promote CAFTA and NAFTA. Texas should become idependent. Alaska and Hawai can be sold to China to pay the debt and all Americans can start fresh. Let the liberals go their own way and reconstruct the constituton to their secular god. Let Conservatives go their way and preserve our founding fathers thought in the American Constituton and the Bill of Rights. Let Liberals have thier ideas of global government and single currency and promote transnationalism. Let Conservatives maintain soverneignty.

There are plenty of infrastucture assets to support the division. Liberals can decide what to do with their borders and Conservatives can employ the military.

Like a bad marriage, each can go their on separate way in the divorce and strive to be happy and embrace change that everyone can believe in.

(1) I would like to see a list of countries that recognize Texas as a sovereign country. Even in its ten years existence as a separate nation few countries recognized it.

(2) Texas would never allow the US to sell it to China to pay off debts. That's wacky.

(3) Texas could survivie very well without US support. It is a donor state (ie a net contribution of taxes to federal government), it has most of the US oil reserves, it is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state, it has vast agriculture and other natural resources, and has a well trained population.

(4) Texas could be independent through a collaborative de-annexation process. This would require approval of the US Congress and the other 49 state legistaures (not sure what margin of support is required, quorum, plurality, or all 49 states).